IB

[Ron Avery]

There has never been anything but 100% support of genuine IB recipients in this thread, but people like Grecian should be aware that IB was not designed as a long term benefit or pension, it was intended as a short term benefit to allow people to come to terms with an incapacity that was preventing them from undertaking their normal employment.  However for various reasons that criteria paled into insignificance and it became a substitute for unemployment benefit leading to people over the years to become dependent on it and also over time to lose confidence and self esteem in a rapid spiral of self doubt and loss of confidence in their abilities to earn a living and in some cases to interact with other people.  This also often led to partnership issues, depression etc  which all add to the unlikelihood of that person being employable again.  There are many cases of people from a point of a minor incapacity like a broken toe or finger losing them their jobs have now become as is stands totally unemployable and that was seen to be greatly assisted by the negative award criteria for IB, ie you qualify because you cannot do something, which in turn enabled the large number of fraudulent claimants to jump on the bandwagon. 

The situation in the future will be what IB was intended as, a short term benefit related to a cessation from employment, and whether Grecian likes it or not, going abroad away from your job or place of work will disqualify you from receiving IB or ESA as it will be called in the future. In many people's opinions in the “industry” and goverment this should always have been the case, you cannot export JSA, so why IB?  Yes you can move to France Grecian but don’t expect to receive a UK "employment related" benefit if you do.

Before anyone mentions DLA, that is a different situation entirely and there is no real reason why it should not be exportable having no relationship to one's ablity to work or place of residence. 

[ali-cat]

[quote user="cassis"][quote user="Russethouse"]

Grecian, No matter what any ones opinion the facts speak for themselves. The Uk government 'says' it is going to invest in getting those that can work in any capacity off IB. That may mean they go onto JSA which is not exportable in the long term as I understand it (correct me if I am wrong) From the googling I have done some people on IB actually welcome this, they want to work and want to see legislation that makes employers take on a certain number of disabled workers, actually enforced for example.

I don't know how clear I can make this, no one has said anything about those who genuinely deserve or  qualify for IB getting it. The people I (and others) object to are those that are receiving IB when they shouldn't be. This does not mean people who look healthy but are actually ill, it means people who are cheating.

Why genuine claimants have taken offense at this I just don't know - it's a bit like me as a tax payer sanctioning tax evaders. I really don't get it.

 [/quote]

I think this bears repeating.

[/quote]

Yes it is worth repeating. Up front - immediately once of these 'lets crack down on IB' threads appears.

To recap : the original post was a link to the government's proposals to focus more on what IB claimants can do and not what they can't and therefore to attempt to identify suitable employment opportunities rather than a life on benefits. Therefore the OP referred to all those receiving IB – not to a crackdown on fraud.

However it wasn't long before comments such as these appeared :

“There were some figures on the news last night. If I remember correctly 47% of claimants are due to 'mental illnesses' and another 12% due to people with back injuries and rheumatism. It seems unjustified and fraudulent claims cost each UK taxpayer £135 per year.”

“Yes some illnesses can come and go and vary in their intensity but I would venture that it is a minority who are utterly incabable of performing some sort of light work on a part time basis, how physically fit do you need to be to say work in a call center where all you have to do is answer the telephone and read from a script and/or tick a few boxes on a computer screen ?”

“stress”, “backache”, “depression” etc...

“I know more fradulent claimants than genuine ones”

“The stats for fraudulent claims are surely only those that have been proven, as far as the DWP is concerned all those claimants in France and Spain for that matter are genuine because they have all been “assessed”, but we all know that is not the case”

etc etc etc.

Hardly qualified by a concern for genuine claimants!

I was always taught that effective communication is not the message you think you are giving but the one received. The message received on the face of it was pretty unambiguous. Most if not all those claiming IB do not deserve it and they certainly shouldn't be allowed to move to France. Why should anyone have to “read between the lines” to find what you really mean?

Actually I think Grecian was pretty adept at reading between the lines. What he could also have added was that the French Govt's amnesty allowing existing residents to join CMU was NOT extended to IB claimants (or those with E109s). Why was the collective weight of this forum not thrown behind these people?

Finally

“ there has never been anything but 100% support of genuine IB recipients in this thread, but people like Grecian should be aware that IB was not designed as a long term benefit or pension, it was intended as a short term benefit to allow people to come to terms with an incapacity that was preventing them from undertaking their normal employment.”

In respect of 100% support - to use that well worn phrase “Oh come on!” 

FYI Statutory Sick pay is a short term benefit relating to one's normal employment. Long term IB, or its replacement, is and will continue to be a benefit paid to those assessed by DWP as being incapable of working in any capacity.

[Patf]

Ron 's comment about the claimants losing confidence and going into a downward spiral of feeling useless rang a bell with me.

We have recently had to stay 2 young men, son of a friend and his mate who he met at a therapy group. Aged 23 and 29. They have been diagnosed with Aspergers syndrome, and receive IB plus other allowances.

It seems a terrible thing to me that 2 young, fit men are thrown on the pile of the permanently unemployed. They said they wouldn't mind a part time job but wouldn't want to lose their benefits.

I hope the criteria for awarding this benefit are revised quickly.

 

[Ron Avery]

Edited

What I don't understand is that everytime the reform of IB comes up, you get the same claimants telling everybody who welcomes the reforms for positive reasons as many have done, that they are not intelligent enough to possibly understand their situation  and then to others who might be counting on IB to assist in a move to France "to read between the lines" and invent rhetoric unwritten and unspoken about fruad scroungers etc  But all the time the bottom line is really we don't like you talking about the fact that we might lose our IB as under the new rules we might lose our IB because we can actually do some work as many have admitted.

The statement made by Mr Cat about those incapable of any work is true, but nobody is saying that IB/ESA will continue be paid to people outside of the UK in future no matter what government is in power and I have yet to see any reason from anybody why it should be paid to people in France with no intention of ever working again if they can help it! 

[Ron Avery]

[quote user="ali-cat"] 

Actually I think Grecian was pretty adept at reading between the lines. What he could also have added was that the French Govt's amnesty allowing existing residents to join CMU was NOT extended to IB claimants (or those with E109s). Why was the collective weight of this forum not thrown behind these people?

[/quote]

Because IB claimants and their dependents get E 121s and are covered as are pensioners by the general medical system, not the CMU?

[ali-cat]

[quote user="Ron Avery"][quote user="ali-cat"] 

Actually I think Grecian was pretty adept at reading between the lines. What he could also have added was that the French Govt's amnesty allowing existing residents to join CMU was NOT extended to IB claimants (or those with E109s). Why was the collective weight of this forum not thrown behind these people?

[/quote]

Because IB claimants and their dependents get E 121s and are covered as are pensioners by the general medical system, not the CMU?

[/quote]

Until they lose entitlement to IB as a result of medical review or DWP administrative changes.  Whether or not you agree with this is irrelevent. They were legally resident here under the previous rules and, like E106 holders, should be allowed to join CMU in the absence of E121 cover. Such an undertaking has not been given by the French government.

[Boiling a frog]

[quote user="ali-cat"][

Until they lose entitlement to IB as a result of medical review or DWP administrative changes.  Whether or not you agree with this is irrelevent. They were legally resident here under the previous rules and, like E106 holders, should be allowed to join CMU in the absence of E121 cover. Such an undertaking has not been given by the French government.

[/quote]

 

But IB holders always knew that they could lose their right to IB and hence an E121,they just never thought that there was the remotest possibility of that happening. 

 

Would you're senario only apply to those who were here on IB before November 2007 or for everyone who loses their E121 now and in the future.

[ali-cat]

[quote user="Ron Avery"]

Edited

What I don't understand is that everytime the reform of IB comes up, you get the same claimants telling everybody who welcomes the reforms for positive reasons as many have done,

I've already welcomed the proposals in as much as they might assist those capable back into employment

that they are not intelligent enough to possibly understand their situation

I made no such claim

  and then to others who might be counting on IB to assist in a move to France "to read between the lines" and invent rhetoric unwritten and unspoken about fruad scroungers etc 

Direct quotes from this thread Ron.  However, given the attitudes displayed on this forum I'd keep quiet about my personal circumstances if considering the move.

But all the time the bottom line is really we don't like you talking about the fact that we might lose our IB as under the new rules we might lose our IB because we can actually do some work as many have admitted.

Thats quite a bizarre statement. I've already stated that our interest is for those who are more vulnerable than us and who might lose out due to what economists call 'unforeseen consequences' - i.e. no system is perfect and mistakes are made.  What we object to is not the discussion of these topics per se, but the unalloyed joy that some express when reforms are mentioned, displaying shall we say, a rather 'one dimensional' appreciation of the subject? 

The statement made by Mr Cat about those incapable of any work is true, but nobody is saying that IB/ESA will continue be paid to people outside of the UK in future no matter what government is in power and I have yet to see any reason from anybody why it should be paid to people in France with no intention of ever working again if they can help it! 

Hopefully we would all agree that there should be some safety net of support for those who have previously been working and find themselves unable to work through illness.  That support is IB.  IB is paid to those found to be incapable of working in any capacity. This being the case they do not need to be available for work unless subsequently judged capable.  Under EU regulations IB is an exportable benefit.  If someone receiving IB decides to move to France, for the same reasons as anyone else - i.e a better quality of life,  in the full knowledge that they may lose that benefit and will not be able to claim JSA,  then why shouldn't they? 

PS If you check my earlier posts I've already stated that I've no intention of never working again if I can at all help it.

 

[/quote]

[ali-cat]

[quote user="Boiling a frog"][quote user="ali-cat"][

Until they lose entitlement to IB as a result of medical review or DWP administrative changes.  Whether or not you agree with this is irrelevent. They were legally resident here under the previous rules and, like E106 holders, should be allowed to join CMU in the absence of E121 cover. Such an undertaking has not been given by the French government.

[/quote]

 

But IB holders always knew that they could lose their right to IB and hence an E121,they just never thought that there was the remotest possibility of that happening. 

Sorry BAF but most IB recipients are all, or should be,  too well aware of the possibility of losing the benefit.  Many had a major struggle to get on the benefit in the first place and many have had the benefit stopped only to have it reinstated on appeal due to a finding of maladministration.  Regular reviews and the possiblity of losing the benefit have always been part of the system.

Would you're senario only apply to those who were here on IB before November 2007 or for everyone who loses their E121 now and in the future.

I was speaking specifically about those resident here prior to Nov 2007 who, like eveyone else, was unaware of the plans to require 'inactifs' to have private health insurance unless otherwise covered.  The case for ALL future residents is a tough one.  Given the current uncertainties around access to the French healthcare system anyone with a current or previous illness would have to think long and hard about moving to France (or Valencia).

[/quote]